Isaac Laquedem

Endorsements III - the state ballot measures

Herewith Isaac's view of the statewide ballot measures, starting with two housekeeping measures::

Measure 77 would amend the constitution to give the governor authority to respond to natural disasters and other specified emergencies and to manage the immediate response if the legislature is not in session.  The measure can't ensure that the governor will be Chris Christie, but it is a reasonable proposal and should be adopted.

Measure 78 would correct the framers' confusion between departments of government and branches of government.  It would also correct two embarrassing spelling mistakes ("seperate" and "independant") and remove the presumption that the Secretary of State is male.  It, too, should be adopted.

No one much cares about Measures 77 and 78.  The measures get much more interesting beginning with 79.  Measure 79 would add a provision to the constitution to prohibit the state and local governments from imposing real estate transfer taxes.  The transfer tax imposed by Washington County (0.1%, or $500 on a $500,000 house; for comparison, in Clark County, Washington the transfer tax would be $8,900) would be grandfathered.  The state currently has a statute to prohibit new real estate transfer taxes, which the legislature can amend.  If Measure 79 passes, the prohibition would be in the constitution, and any new real estate transfer tax would require a statewide vote to amend the constitution.  The measure has attracted a lot of support and a fair amount of opposition.  The opponents argue that the amendment isn't needed because state law already prohibits new transfer taxes.  The proponents respond that transfer taxes have been proposed in every legislative session since 2001, including nine proposals in the last five sessions.  The opponents make a second explicit argument, which is that this amendment would "clutter up the constitution" (three statements in opposition) and is "confusing and unnecessary" (four statements). 

Actually, Measure 79 isn't confusing at all; it's very clear.  It says that state and local governments may not tax real estate transfers except for fees that were in effect in 2009.  The opponents dislike the measure, not because it is confusing and unnecessary, but because they want the legislature to repeal the ban on new transfer taxes so that cities and counties can adopt Washington-style transfer taxes.  The repeated attempts to repeal the statutory ban mean that Measure 79 deserves a "yes" vote.

From taxing to toking: Measure 80 would create the Oregon Cannabis Commission (think of it as something like the OLCC) to regulate the sale of marijuana, and would legalize the private growing, owning, and use of marijuana in Oregon.  We're odd enough as it is.  Reject this measure.

Current law allows commercial salmon fishing in the Columbia River with gillnets.  Measure 81 would ban commercial gillnet fishing by Oregon non-tribal fishers (Washington licensees could continue to use gillnets) and prohibit commercial non-tribal fishers from landing a higher percentage of fish (relative to recreational fishers) than they did in 2007-2011.

I don't understand the measure itself, but the arguments in the Voter's Pamphlet helped a great deal.  I think that the measure closes the Oregon gillnet fishery, allows Washington gillnetters to continue, prohibits Oregonians from buying Washington fish, and gives sport fishers a window of several years of unobstructed fishing before Oregon issues regulations to allow its commercial fishers back on the Columbia.   My general rule is to vote against anything that I don't understand, so I am voting against Measure 81.

Measures 82 and 83 are companions.  Measure 82 would amend the constitution to authorize non-tribal casinos.  Measure 83 would allow anyone to build a casino on one specific tract of land at the northeast corner of NE Glisan Street and NE 223rd Avenue in Wood Village, the former Multnomah Kennel Club.  The two measures remind me of a character in Jimmy Breslin's novel "The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight," a New York assemblyman named Joseph DeLauria who introduced a measure that would turn over ownership of the Hudson River to a private company.  The governor, vetoing the bill, said "The last person who tried anything like this was my father."  The casino sponsors have folded their tent (maybe I should say "folded their hands") and walked away.  These measures are a special handout and deserve not just rejection but folding, spindling, and mutilating.  Vote against them.

Measure 84 would repeal the Oregon inheritance tax and prohibit all income taxes on intra-company intra-family transfers [thanks, Jack!].  It's a nice idea that's abysmally written.  It should be rejected.

Measure 85 would allocate the corporate income and excise tax "kicker" to fund public schools.  Instead of refunding "kicker" money to corporations if the state's tax collections run above budget, the state would allocate the excess revenue to the public schools.  The only argument submitted in opposition says that as business has received no kicker refund since 2007, the measure won't have any actual result.  That's similar to the argument against Measure 79.  It's not a very good argument.  If some day corporate tax revenues are higher than budgeted, it makes sense to dedicate them to the public schools.  I enthusiastically support Measure 85.

Endorsements II: The congressional races, incumbents all

This year's congressional races offer no great surprises.  In only one race has a challenger raised any serious funding, and the serious funding is unaccompanied by serious ideas.  The incumbents all deserve another term.

In the First District, Democrat Suzanne Bonamici, a half-term incumbent elected to the seat after David Wu resigned, faces an unfunded challenge from Republican Delinda Morgan.  (The Center for Responsive Politics credits Rep. Bonamici with raising $2.4 million, and Ms. Morgan with $8,086.)  No one expects much from a brand-new representative coming in midway through the session, but Rep. Bonamici appears to be catching on quickly.  Ms. Morgan's campaign platform (here) states her support for "cut, cap, and balance," the conservative Republican approach to the nation's fiscal mess.  Interestingly, she goes beyond "cut, cap, and balance" to advocate repealing the Internal Revenue Code and (if I understand her rightly) replacing the income and estate taxes covered by the current Code with a national sales tax.

The problem with Ms. Morgan's proposal is that annual retail sales in the United States are about $4.5 trillion per year.  To fund a $2 trillion/year government (less than what we're spending now) would thus require a general sales tax of 40% or more, and shifting the tax burden from the rich and the middle-income to the poor and low-income.  Re-electing Rep. Bonamici is an easy call.

In the Second District, incumbent Republican Greg Walden ($2.5 million) has represented his district ably and should be returned to office.  His Democratic challenger, Joyce Segers, has raised only $30,000.  She links to a summary of Rep. Walden's voting record (here) that shows him to be more conservative than moderate, but by my interpretation in the left wing of the Republican party.  She makes no compelling case for replacing Rep. Walden, who appears to be in sync with the general views of his district.

Continental Europe has its "bicycle monarchs," as the British describe the low-pomp royal houses across the Channel.  The Third District has the bicycle congressman, the low-pomp Earl Blumenauer, the senior and most effective of Oregon's members of the House.  Being a policy wonk (a term he likely revels in), he's filled his Voter's Pamphlet page with five specific policy proposals, followed by the statement, "There are 35 others listed on my website.  Take a look."  Allowing that he has the luxury of being able to make specific proposals because he has the safest district in Oregon, he nevertheless deserves re-election.

The Fourth District hosts the only race with a well-funded challenger.  Incumbent Peter DeFazio ($1.2 million) faces a strong challenge from Republican Art Robinson ($1 million).  Rep. DeFazio represents the most politically diverse district in Oregon, covering liberal Eugene, working-class mill towns, and head-for-the-hills rightists: a tough balancing act.  Mr. Robinson's positions vary from the conservative to the bizarre: for example, here he says that "the Constitution does not permit paper money, only gold and silver," and says that "capital gains taxes and special laws stopped the use of gold and silver."  He does, however, accept campaign donations through the non-metallic means of Visa and MasterCard.  Voters who believe that the science of economics has progressed since the 18th century should re-elect Mr. DeFazio.

In the Fifth District, incumbent Kurt Schrader ($1.6 million) is opposed by Republican Fred Thompson and Pacific Green candidate Christina Jean Lugo.  Neither makes a convincing case for replacing Dr. Schrader, though they both appear to be serious, thoughtful candidates.  (It's a mystery to me why Republican donors have flocked to Mr. Robinson ($1 million) in the Fourth District and avoided Mr. Thompson ($22,000) in the Fifth District, and it suggests to me that it's possible to become rich without a grasp of the dismal science.)  The Fifth District should cheerfully return Dr. Schrader for another term.

Endorsements 2012 I: Mitt Romney* For President

The oddity of this year's presidential race is that the two major parties have nominated three candidates.  The Democrats have nominated the incumbent, Barack Obama, for another term, and he sailed through the primaries and caucuses in every state except West Virginia.  Mr. Obama's administration has begun, however,tentatively, to turn around the economy from the mess that he inherited from George W. Bush.  He authorized and achieved the capture and execution (let's not mince words) of Osama bin Laden.  He persuaded Congress to adopt a form of national health care, a party goal that had eluded several of his able predecessors.  He's nevertheless outclassed by one of his opponents.

The Republicans have nominated two men with similar names to face the President:  Mitt Romney²⁰¹² and MittRomney²⁰⁰³.  Of Mr. Romney²⁰¹² little need be said.  He seems a decent if mathematically challenged fellow who proposes to raise revenue and cut tax loopholes without increasing anyone's taxes, and wants to simultaneously increase military spending and cut the deficit.  On occasion I wonder if he is in fact a golem that resulted when the national Republican Party ventured into creating a life form perfectly suited to winning the nomination, as he is the Romney that sought and won the nomination.

The Republicans have sent out onto the campaign trail, however, not just Mitt Romney²⁰¹² but also Mitt Romney²⁰⁰³.  Mr. Romney²⁰⁰³ supports gun control and state-sponsored universal health care, opposes state limitations on women's rights, and closes tax loopholes even if the result is that the rich pay more.  He's well-suited to break the partisan gridlock on Capitol Hill.  He's much more near the nation's center than is Mr. Romney²⁰¹² and would govern fairly and impartially.  For those reasons I favor Mitt Romney²⁰⁰³ for the presidency this year, and would enthusiastically vote for him -- hence the asterisk in this post's title.

I received my ballot yesterday and looked forward to voting for Mr. Romney²⁰⁰³.  The problem is that only one Mitt Romney appears on my ballot, running with a Senator Ryan who appears to have been chosen by Mr. Romney²⁰¹². I don't know which Romney I would be helping to elect if I marked that oval, and Mr. Romney²⁰¹² is out of sync with the nation.  For that reason, although Mr. Romney²⁰⁰³ is my favored choice this year, I intend to vote to re-elect President Obama.

The unused-ballots law resurfaces, and Multnomah County still doesn't want to comply

Not much noticed in the media last week were the efforts of James Buchal (the Republican candidate for attorney general) and others to force Multnomah County to comply with the obscure bit of Oregon's elections law, ORS 254.483, that requires our county clerks to destroy unused ballots promptly after 8:00 p.m. on election day.   Mr. Buchal sought the Multnomah County Circuit's court help in enforcing this law.

On October 9, Judge Youlee You denied Mr. Buchal's request, based in part on Multnomah County's argument that if the county destroyed the unused ballots promptly after 8:00 p.m., then "any citizen who is in line at 8 pm and entitled to vote but who needs a replacement ballot would be denied the right to vote"  (Quaere: does anyone yet line up at the county clerk's office at 8:00 p.m. on Election Day to try to vote?). Judge You also noted that although ORS 254.483(1) requires county clerks to destroy unused ballots promptly after 8:00 p.m., ORS 254.483(2) requires county clerks to provide for the security of unused ballots promptly after 8:00 p.m.  She reasoned that county clerks could not simultaneously destroy the ballots and keep them secure, and observed that the clerks place the unused ballots in sealed boxes and place the boxes in a locked room. Seeing it as her duty under a 1955 Oregon supreme court case to adopt an interpretation that would give effect to the entire statute and not one that would "wreck a substantial and important part of it," Judge You held that the counties do not have to destroy the ballots despite the plain language of the statute.

The final oddity of the case is that Multnomah County wants the plaintiffs to pay the county's attorney fees, leading to the amusing if painful realization that the county's taxpayers are paying their lawyers first to defend the county's unwillingness to follow state law, and then to recover the cost of not following state law from the citizens who want it to.

"And they brought us whole binders full of women." -- Mitt Romney

And here I was, thinking that Mr. Romney was trying to put the polygamy issue to bed.

Clackamas River Water District: is it a board meeting if only one director shows up?

The Clackamas River Water District has been in the news lately. Two years ago one commissioner was in a bar fight.  This summer a commissioner resigned.  Next the Oregonian reported that the district spends more on lawyers than any other water district in the area.  Commissioners file ethics complaints against other commissioners.  The Portland Tribune has reported that commissioner Kami Kehoe has moved out of the district and is thus no longer eligible to serve.  Lawsuits have flown.  This afternoon Kami Kehoe and another commissioner, Barbara Kemper, announced that they intend to resign from the board at the end of the month.  It all sounds very much like the Italian parliament on a particularly disorganized day, and today being the regular monthly board meeting, I thought I should go see for myself.

The board holds its regular meeting on the second Thursday of the month (today) at 6:00.  At 6:15 the doors were still locked.  At 6:45 commissioner Pat Holloway arrived and unlocked the front door (the water district shares the building with a private business).  The door to the meeting room has a separate lock, which the general manager, Lee Moore, can unlock.  He did not appear.  It turned out that Commissioners Kehoe and Kemper (the two who intend to resign) were not able to come.  Commissioner Grafton Sterling, who is generally allied with Commissioner Holloway and who was expected to attend, did not come either.

What resulted was a simultaneously entertaining, sociable, surreal, and Kafkaesque rendition of a board meeting, conducted in the building lobby, with only one commissioner.  The small audience included reporter Kohr Harlan from KOIN, a ratepayer or two, and at least two former commissioners, Cyndi Lewis-Wolfram and Warren Mitchell.  It turned into a Q-and-A session and then into something resembling speed dating, as Commissioner Holloway, the former commissioners, and the ratepayers moved between Mr. Harlan and me, each appearing to be quite reasonable.  Ms. Holloway said that the district had been spending its reserve fund and not adequately dealing with the increased cost of water from the South Fork Water District.  Ms. Lewis-Wolfram said that the fund Ms. Holloway was referring to wasn't a reserve fund, but a stabilization fund (more about that in another post). 

I'll have more to say about this troubled district after I do a little fact-checking.  Suffice to say that I found the commissioners to be quite engaging and accessible.  Mr. Mitchell showed me the case number of the suit against him related to the water district, rather in the manner that I would show off baby pictures of the Laquedemitasse, many years ago, and Ms. Holloway gave me copies of her research into whether Ms. Kehoe lost her board seat when she registered to vote outside of the district. If it weren't for the news stories, I might have taken the gathering for a meeting of a group of cousins, amiably recalling the fancied slights of fifty years ago.  

Tonight's presidential debate: no knockout punch, but Romney wins on points

Having the famous Kennedy-Nixon debate of 1960 in mind, where radio listeners thought that Mr. Nixon had won, and television viewers thought that Mr. Kennedy had won, I listened to the first half of the debate on radio, and watched the second half on television.  I had the sense that President Obama was the better debater when I was listening, and that Governor Romney was better when I was also watching.  Herewith some impressions:

First, Governor Romney made a solid move toward the center, as he must do if he is to have a reasonable chance of winning the election.  He laid little stress on the more extreme positions of his party, backed off from his tax cut proposals, and identified two (admittedly small) programs that he would cut.  I also got the sense that he was trying to look and sound a little like Ronald Reagan, in hair, cadence, and style.

By contrast, President Obama was off of the form that he displayed in the 2008 debates.  Several of his long answers wandered far from the topic without making a definite point.  He told the story of his grandmother well, and he claimed the word "Obamacare."  However, he missed an opening when Mr. Romney joked that "Maybe I should change accountants" to give a clear comparison of the Romney and Obama tax plans.  Mr. Obama's biggest loss, and Mr. Romney's biggest gain, was that the challenger came across as careful, prudent, and informed, far from the extremist corner into which the Obama campaign has tried to paint him.

The race narrows.